2011
DOI: 10.1002/micr.20915
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optical requirements on magnification systems for intracranial video microsurgery

Abstract: From an optical point of view current operating microscopes meet the requirements of intracranial microneurosurgery. However, ergonomically further developments are highly desirable. Video microsurgery is a promising field and could hold a solution to this problem.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The significant difference between microscopic surgical manipulation and manipulation with RoboticScope is the relationship between the visual line and surgical site: in microscopic manipulation, the visual line is directed towards the surgical site [9][10][11]. When using the RoboticScope, the visual line does not necessarily point towards the surgical site, which is, at first, an unusual situation for the surgeon.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The significant difference between microscopic surgical manipulation and manipulation with RoboticScope is the relationship between the visual line and surgical site: in microscopic manipulation, the visual line is directed towards the surgical site [9][10][11]. When using the RoboticScope, the visual line does not necessarily point towards the surgical site, which is, at first, an unusual situation for the surgeon.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The motivation of duplicating one IDC is strongly linked to the expected temporal shift. The field of view in cerebrovascular surgery is ∼3 × 3 cm 2 , the mean flow velocity is about ∼10 − 50 cm s and a typical exposed length of a vessel is 1-2 cm (Cieslicki and Ciesla, 2005;Ebner et al, 2011;MacDonald and Frayne, 2015;Zarrinkoob et al, 2015). The expected morphological changes of the IDCs is negligible; in the Supplementary Material (section 3.6), the magnitude of change is shown.…”
Section: Idc Generationmentioning
confidence: 99%